[G.R. No. 142304. June 20, 2001.

]
CITY OF MANILA, Petitioner, v. OSCAR, FELICITAS, JOSE, BENJAMIN, ESTELITA, LEONORA,
and ADELAIDA, all surnamed SERRANO, Respondents.

The case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA enjoining RTC Manila
from proceeding with the petitioner’s complaint for eminent domain

The City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7833 authorizing the expropriation of certain
properties in Manila’s First District in Tondo, which shall be sold and distributed to the
qualified occupants pursuant to the Land Use Development Program of the City of Manila. The
subject parcel of land in this case is one of the properties sought to be expropriated containing a
343.10 sqm. (Lot 1-C). The respondents prayed that Lot 1-C be exempted from expropriation
and the notice annotated on the back of its title be cancelled.

Upon the motion of the petitioner, the trial court issued an order directing the former to deposit
the amount of the assessed value of the properties. After such deposit, the trial court then issued
another order directing the issuance of writ of possession in favor of the petitioner.

On appeal to the CA, the respondents argued that Lot 1-C is exempt from expropriation because
RA 7279 provides that properties consisting of residential lands not exceeding 300 sqm. in
highly urbanized cities are exempt from expropriations, and that when subdivided among
them, each would only get less than 50 sqm.

The CA held that Lot 1-C is not exempt from expropriation since its exceeded 300 sqm.
However, it also held that in accordance with the ruling in Filstream International Inc. v. CA,
other modes of land acquisition enumerated in Sec. 10 of RA 7279 must first be tried before the
city government resorts to expropriation. A writ of injunction was issued by the CA enjoining
the respondent court from proceeding with the complaint for eminent domain.

Whether or not the CA erroneously presumed that Lot 1-C has been ordered condemned in
favor of the petitioner

The SC held to the affirmative.

Based on the Rules of Court, upon filing of the complaint and after due notice to the defendant,
the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property
involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the
assessed value of the property. After such deposit, the plaintiff shall be placed in possession of
the property involved. A writ of execution may then be issued by the court upon the filing by
the government of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and upon
deposit made by the government to the assessed value of the property subject to expropriation.
Upon compliance with these requirements, issuance of a writ of possession shall be ministerial.

The CA erred in ruling that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements laid down in
RA 7279 based on the Filstream case. In the Filstream case, there was already an order of
condemnation issued thus the judgment has already become final. In this case, only an order
issuing a writ of possession has been made by the trial court. A hearing to determine whether or
not the petitioner complied with the requirements provided in RA 7279 is still to be held.
Expropriation proceedings consists of two stages: (1) condemnation of the property after it is
determined that its acquisition will be for public use, and (2) the determination of just
compensation to be paid for the taking of private property to be made by the court with the
assistance of not more than three commissioners.